list_unity_hub_projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description steps up: it discloses the default output shape (basenames only), the environment variable that changes it to full paths, and a precondition (no project path needed). It omits read-only framing, ordering, and empty-result behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential facts (resource, default output form, override, precondition) and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, non-destructive list operation with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (basenames vs paths) and the key precondition. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether an empty list is possible, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic load and the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining that output verbosity is controlled by an environment variable rather than a parameter, which preempts an agent looking for an option argument.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Unity Hub projects') and the clarification that it does not require UNITY_PROJECT_PATH implicitly separates it from the asset-listing siblings, which operate inside a project. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The note that UNITY_PROJECT_PATH is not required gives a useful usage cue: this tool works outside an open-project context, unlike most siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it or what to use instead for in-project asset discovery, leaving guidance implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.